Pro-Israel groups made an alliance with Christian Zionist groups. Both sides recognize that when the alliance is no longer useful, they'll end it. In other words, if Israel gives up more land, the Christian right might turn on it. And if the Christians decide to aggressively convert Jews, the Jewish groups will probably cease cooperation. It was an alliance of convenience.
No one is ignorant of why some Christian Zionist groups support Israel.
No one?
HA!
Many religious Jews think it is shared idealism. They don't realize the religious right hopes the story ends with dead Jews.
In some cases it is shared idealism. In some cases it's the hastening of the Rapture. Frankly I couldn't care less. Politics is politics.
There are some words which I have known since I was a schoolboy. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." These words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie -- as a wisdom, and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
ACLU POWER
I'll take my chances with the Christian groups. What's the worst they can do? Try to convert me?
I don't care that some of them support Israel b/c they believe it will bring the Rapture.
As I don't think the Rapture is coming anytime soon, I'll take their support as long as it lasts.
What's the worst the liberal groups will do? Give you a free and open enviroemnt where you can practice your religion as you think best?
I was refering to their support of Israel.
As I share almost no cultural or political values with liberal groups, and their support for Israel is nil I see no reason to ally myself with them.
I would rather have little support, than the huge support of people whose real wish is to see the Jewish faith disappear.
Israel needs the support of more JEWS. This is where we should be putting our time, effort & money - garnering the support of our own people. Not schmeicheling the ones for whom this is "an alliance of convenience."
We've been trying - but it's hard to get Jew excited about Israel when they don't care about being Jews.
You've got to give a reason for people to care.
Quote from the article:
'I would argue that militant Christian Zionism is dangerous for Israel's security and for it's very existence'
There is another problem. Christian Zionism is a current controversy within Christianity. And it is in fact the minority opinion. By siding openly with Christian Zionists we are taking sides in a theological dispute of a different religion. Rov Soloveitchik's "Confrontation" would seem to apply here.
'And if the Christians decide to aggressively convert Jews'
They are now. The Southern Baptists alone have targeted exactly 5,589,039
Jews for conversion -- and that is just the number outside of North America.
http://imb.org/globalresearch/do...20(2005-10)
.xls
And their President was just in Israel supporting their efforts to destroy the Jewish people:
http://www.imb.org/core/
story.as...LanguageID=1709
There is another problem. Christian Zionism is a current controversy within Christianity. And it is in fact the minority opinion. By siding openly with Christian Zionists we are taking sides in a theological dispute of a different religion. Rov Soloveitchik's "Confrontation" would seem to apply here.
We aren't taking sides in anything. We don't care about their religion. All we care about is whether they'll support our position.
'And if the Christians decide to aggressively convert Jews'
They are now. The Southern Baptists alone have targeted exactly 5,589,039
Jews for conversion -- and that is just the number outside of North America.
I'm not sure I'd call that aggressive misionizing. It's just a list of people they'd wish to convert.
What's the worst the liberal groups will do? Give you a free and open enviroemnt where you can practice your religion as you think best?
Fight security measures that protect us?
As I share almost no cultural or political values with liberal groups, and their support for Israel is nil I see no reason to ally myself with them.
Nil? Oh right, I forgot. You don't value the efforts of people like Bill CLinton. Sure, he nearly sabatoged his career in pursuit of a lasting peace in the Middle East, but his wife (who also supports Israel at least as much as Laura the Librarian) once swapped some spit with Suhu Arafat so Fie on all that.
What's the worst the liberal groups will do? Give you a free and open enviroemnt where you can practice your religion as you think best?
Fight security measures that protect us?
Security measure which erode our liberties, you mean.
Nope I don't value what Bill Clinton did; trying to enshrine his legacy at the expense of Israeli lives.
>Security measure which erode our liberties, you mean.
No, I'm pretty sure he meant security.
The ACLU has come out against every single piece of anti-terrorism legislation since 9/11.
When the ACLU starts offering good ideas for fighting terrorism that in no way effect our civil liberties, I'll listen.
The ACLU has come out against every single piece of anti-terrorism legislation since 9/11.
When the ACLU starts offering good ideas for fighting terrorism that in no way effect our civil liberties, I'll listen.
..............
It isn't their job to fight terrorism. It is there job to make sure that those fighting terrorism don't damage the republic. And they are doing a great job.
Nope I don't value what Bill Clinton did; trying to enshrine his legacy at the expense of Israeli lives
===================
Uh.. he was trying SAVE lives, and he very nearly destroyed his legacy. You righties aren't very fair to him. He was on the side of the Jewish people, after all.
It isn't their job to fight terrorism. It is there job to make sure that those fighting terrorism don't damage the republic. And they are doing a great job.
And therein lies the primary difference between us all.
We all recognize the importance of our civil liberties. You feel that as our liberties should not be infringed upon, to give up any semblance of civil liberty at any point may result in further infringements in the future. We, however, disagree. We recognize two aspects: 1) Liberties don't help much if you're dead. 2) In order to best preserve our way of life and our liberties and freedoms, we must be smart. We cannot pretend that threats don't exist, or that by somehow ignoring them all they'll go away. We're not children anymore.
Two important points from two posts of mine today: (I don't normally do this, but these are relevant... I'm pretty sure you don't object in general. If you do, delete this part.) A judge threw out the ACLU's attempt to stop searches on the NYC subway (which can be refused, but the person must then leave the subway). He recognizes that the searches are a minimal intrusion and noted that 'the consequences of unpreparedness may be catastrophic'. He realizes that the sacrifice is minimal vs. the overall gains received.
A perfect example of this is today's attack in Netanya. The guards in this case were searching people as they entered a public mall. They thought this man looked suspicious, and threw him against the wall - but he then pressed the button and blew himself up, killing 5 (from the reports I saw). Without those searches, far more people would be dead or wounded.
Taken to the extreme, even concepts such as liberty can be wrong.
The Left is no less dangerous than the Right. For every Hitler there is a Stalin.
"What's the worst the liberal groups will do? Give you a free and open enviroemnt where you can practice your religion as you think best?"
More accurately as they think best. On many issues Liberals advocate that Public Policy trumps individual and collective religious freedoms. That's because Liberals want Central government to impose their Liberal vision of freedom on the masses. The problem is that if you are Liberal you may just be lulled into thinking that's freedom.
The worst the Liberals could do? Regulate private school curricula, enforce labor laws that prevent religious institutions from insisting that their employees adhere to their institution's moral standards. Use the pretence of Church State separation to take discrimination against the practice of religion in the public square to previously unimagined levels. Undermine traditional families and traditional morals by creating non-existent rights. The list is endless.
'Taken to the extreme, even concepts such as liberty can be wrong.'
To the contrary:
'Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice....moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.'
Barry Goldwater, 1964
'previously unimagined levels'
Please show me an example where Jefferson or Madison supported public funding for any religious activity.
'A judge threw out the ACLU's attempt to stop searches on the NYC subway '
On this one I think the judge was right and the ACLU was wrong. But the ACLU is not wrong on everything; in particular they were on the right side when they sided with the church that wanted to put the ad in the Boston subway.
'Regulate private school curricula, enforce labor laws that prevent religious institutions from insisting that their employees adhere to their institution's moral standards.'
Do you think that government should be funding schools run by racist hate groups without any oversight? I don't.
'Undermine traditional families and traditional morals by creating non-existent rights'
I fail to see how my traditional marriage, or my traditional religion, is undermined if someone who has a different lifestyle has a right to do so. It isn't logical.
Regarding the Christian right (who have at least partially hijacked the Republican Party)
I was refering to their support of Israel.
You mean their "support" of the Jewish messianic nuts who think that stealing Arab land will bring on Mashiach.
of course, the reason why the "post-millenial" Christian Messianic nuts support the Rav Kook messianic kooks is becuase they hope that the settler movement ignites a general war that will bring on the Rapture and Armageddon.
As far as these fools trying to bring on mashiach: Feh!! If there is God, and if He, She, or It wants to bring on Mashiach, He She or It will decide to to it without any "help" from fundamentalist crazies of any religion.
And show me how a general war in the mideast is "good for Israel."
The Left is no less dangerous than the Right. For every Hitler there is a Stalin.
People who make such foolish statements need to read history.
Those comparisions are rediculous and not very helpful to understanding. Bush, his cronies, and the Republican right, much as I detest them, are not the equivalent of Hitler and the Nazis. (Now Mussolini or Tojo..... there might be some parallels.) And Howard Dean, Hillary, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, the ACLU, etc. have abolutely nothing in common with Stalin.
The right wing in the US has been pissed off since the 1930's that FDR (not exactly a "leftist") saved capitalism from itself, has the righties have been trying to undo that achievement. If Bush and hios boys are successful, then we can expect to see a return of whay Alexander Solzyneitzin called "the Red whirlwind" and you all can see what real "leftisits" are like.
The right wing in the US has been pissed off since the 1930's that FDR (not exactly a "leftist") saved capitalism from itself, has the righties have been trying to undo that achievement.
Come on. If you don't like cartoonish depictions of what the left hopes to achieve, don't degrade yourself by promoting similar carticatures of your opponents. What the right is trying to do is to develop markets that are as free as possible, because that tends to promote the highest standards of living for society. (There are corrupt individuals within each camp, of course, but it's an unfair argument to compare your saints with my sinners.)
The primary argument made by the right is that there are dramatic unforeseen consequences of many initiatives that, on the surface, sound more compassionate. One simple example: the higher unemployment that results when the minimum wage is raised. One can dispute the relationship, or the magnitude, but the contention that raising the minimum wage is opposed due to some fundamental mean-ness is both ludicrous and unhelpful.
It's a great rhetorical device to demonize one's opponents, but it really is silly, and contributes nothing to understanding or advancement.
What the right is trying to do is to develop markets that are as free as possible, because that tends to promote the highest standards of living for society.
What the right is doing is yammering on and on about "free markets" and then enacting policies that favor corporate monopolies and oliglopolies. Read any good economics book -- no market can be totally "free," players in a market need rules, predictability, stability. A free market is not a free-for-all.
What the right is doing is yammering on and on about "free markets" and then enacting policies that favor corporate monopolies and oliglopolies. Read any good economics book -- no market can be totally "free," players in a market need rules, predictability, stability. A free market is not a free-for-all.
I've read dozens of good economics books, and I find your characterization of conservative policies to be as inaccurate and silly as alleging that the left yammers on and on about fairness, when it really favors unlimited government control for its own sake.
I can't tell if you are interested in a serious discussion about the issues, or whether you want to continue spouting ridiculous allegations. If it's the former, then I am happy to defend the conservative viewpoint, but if it's the latter, then I shall happily leave you to your unrealistic prejudices.
'unlimited government control for its own sake....serious discussion about the issues'
You know quite well that the first statement is not true -- just look at the ACLU's attempts to restrain government or the Democrats in Congress trying to limit the scope of the Patriot Act! This kind of hyperbole is not 'serious discussion.'
You know quite well that the first statement is not true -- just look at the ACLU's attempts to restrain government or the Democrats in Congress trying to limit the scope of the Patriot Act! This kind of hyperbole is not 'serious discussion.'
That's precisely my point - I was illustrating that ludicrous allegations against the right are as unreasonable as ludicrous allegations against the left.
The above anonymi are me - don't know where my name went.
Undermine traditional families and traditional morals by creating non-existent rights.
Could you explain this please? I am trying very hard to understand how creating new rights might harm my marriage or undermine my family. The right to divore, is relativly new. Has that damaged the traditional institution?
The right to divore, is relativly new. Has that damaged the traditional institution?
I think it has, since facilitating divorce has most likely contributed to increased familial fragmentation, which is probably bad for society. See anything Moynihan wrote in the mid-70s about welfare.
Having made that observation, I am still absolutely opposed to any state telling its citizens which adults they may marry or un-marry. There may be some value in private organizations working to address the societal costs that result from the risks associated with such freedom, though.
for all he news in the local New York area go to http://vosizneias.blogspot.com/
I think it has, since facilitating divorce has most likely contributed to increased familial fragmentation, which is probably bad for society. See anything Moynihan wrote in the mid-70s about welfare.
Keeping people in bad marriages might also be bad for society, not to mention the family itself. Anyway, what about the pursuit of happiness?
As for gay marriage, how might that damage my relationship with my wife and children?
Keeping people in bad marriages might also be bad for society, not to mention the family itself. Anyway, what about the pursuit of happiness?
I'm not arguing with you about the inappropriateness of a government role here. I suspect that children lose some identity with a more fluid family structure (today this guy's your father, tomorrow he's not), but there are obviouslt legitimate counter-examples, and I can't tell which wins.
As for gay marriage, how might that damage my relationship with my wife and children?
I don't know. I never said it would.
'The right to divore, is relativly new'
Jewish, Muslim, and Protestant societies have always permitted divorce; what is new is that predominantly Catholic societies are now permitting it -- and that it is becoming more common in most societies.
Charlie - I wasn't saying the ACLU is always wrong - but on certain types of cases, they're not using their common sense. Too often, they're pandering to a very leftist viewpoint as opposed to that which makes sense.
I liked the second half of Goldwater's quote, but not the first. This ACLU case is a case in point. Granted, it's rare, and perhaps he meant it more generally; I'm sure there could be a couple of exceptions by Justice as well. But there are exceptions.
Jewish, Muslim, and Protestant societies have always permitted divorce; what is new is that predominantly Catholic societies are now permitting it -- and that it is becoming more common in most societies.
That is exactly what I meant.
What is wrong with Christians supporting jews. Seems like they have done more good than bad in the last 30 years.
Commenting by HaloScan
